Readers’ Responses to Our Question (74)

xzibit big barking [url=http://volny.cz/goiimczv/xzibit.html] xzibit big barking [/url] animal of paraguay [url=http://volny.cz/zybzpmyz/paraguay.html] animal of paraguay [/url] advil anti inflammatory [url=http://volny.cz/gmlhbdmc/advil.html] advil anti inflammatory [/url] les paul custom uk [url=http://volny.cz/ddtiahge/le.html] les paul custom uk [/url] management public storage [url=http://volny.cz/njtyqbdd/public-storage.html] management public storage [/url] pet alpacas for sale [url=http://volny.cz/xhixfief/alpacas.html] pet alpacas for sale [/url] citroen c1 [url=http://volny.cz/yodcxusb/citroen.html] citroen c1 [/url] petite tight [url=http://volny.cz/kzxjkddd/tight.html] petite tight [/url] fastest way to skin a deer [url=http://volny.cz/ddyeesan/hedgehog.html] fastest way to skin a deer [/url] stem cells for fuch 27s dystrophy [url=http://volny.cz/dvxcljbb/stem-cells.html] stem cells for fuch 27s dystrophy [/url]

farm machinery for sale [url=http://volny.cz/csnqaghb/farm-machinery.html] farm machinery for sale [/url] mailing address for ikea sweden [url=http://volny.cz/dejjmdbv/ikea.html] mailing address for ikea sweden [/url] 2007 calendar eagle geographic national wall [url=http://volny.cz/evhnodsq/national-geographic.html] 2007 calendar eagle geographic national wall [/url] indian amateurs [url=http://volny.cz/hlauzrlm/amateurs.html] indian amateurs [/url] snow board wipeouts [url=http://volny.cz/vjlvvzvu/wipeout.html] snow board wipeouts [/url] how to wear an insulin pump [url=http://volny.cz/yatwhfus/insulin.html] how to wear an insulin pump [/url] social neighbor [url=http://volny.cz/nhdkiyjr/neighbor.html] social neighbor [/url] calling card russia [url=http://volny.cz/hgvnutov/calling-card.html] calling card russia [/url] yahoo reverse phone number lookup [url=http://volny.cz/parlrmsj/reverse-number-lookup.html] yahoo reverse phone number lookup [/url] roll the ball hector [url=http://volny.cz/qisgbtks/hector.html] roll the ball hector [/url]

Hi,

I like your site, well done! I’ll come by again soon..



Regards,

Soccer Coach

FedEx overnight shipping and free prescription, http://MyRxPill.com

FedEx overnight shipping and free prescription, http://MyRxPill.com

FedEx overnight shipping and free prescription, http://MyRxPill.com

Your know end news! What is this? Discounts!

...Antes de responder a cualquier pregunta,yo les recordaria la leccion de democracia que nos dieron a todo el mundo,cuando fue
el empate que tuvieron el Sr Bush y el Sr Gore...cuando fue precisamente en la corte que fue resuelto...(y segun entiendo por
como es su sistema de elecciones gana el que tiene mas votos por
los estados y no necesariamente por la gente)...en ese entonces
vimos con admiracion y respeto,como es que se resuelven esos
muy delicados asuntos,asi pues,yo espero que con esa misma gallardia
se resuelva en mi pais ese problema...hasta entonces,como solia decir
mi abuelita"...Calladito te ves mas bonito"

Mexico needs estability not problems, who is the man who can give us

This has been an especially rich discussion—all the more valuable with the election result so close and the two political movements so evenly balanced. Several points in this thread struck me particularly. I would like to think with Shiloh Gunn that a victory by the populist Lopez Obrador would push Mexican politics to the center, rather than toward an old PRI-style leftism. But the comments from Mexico City resident Patricia Lopez and others who have watched Lopez Obrador up close make me worry that instead of a centrist, Opez Obrador would prove to be "statist." Not what Mexico meeds, IMHO. The comments from Manuel Gomez Maqueo also added to my worries. We shall see what the electoral authorities announce Wednesday. But I would like to return to these topics—and consider them in the broader context of Latin American politics—in a future discussion. Thanks to all for the excellent posts.

With pluraltiy voting and three candidates, Mexico is guaranteed to the get the president that most of voters do not want.

I fear that in Mexico populist means I will accept bribes from the highest bidder for my services regardless of political or philosophical differences. Populism is a business much like the perverted far-right of the GOP in the United States.

I hope that no matter who is elected they have the courage to ask the United States to adopt the Mexican Constitution's method of dealing with legal and illegal immigration. The Mexican's have a well thought out plan for dealing with illegals. They do not provide social services for their illegals, nor do they license them. Really a fabulous read the Mexican Constitution. Too bad Vicente Fox never read it, for if he had he wouldn't have lectured us so sanctimonously.

The biggest battle the US ever lost to Mexico was not when the Texans lost at the Alamo. It was when our politicians lost to them on the border!

I fear that in Mexico populist means I will accept bribes from the highest bidder for my services regardless of political or philosophical differences. Populism is a business much like the perverted far-right of the GOP in the United States.

I hope that no matter who is elected they have the courage to ask the United States to adopt the Mexican Constitution's method of dealing with legal and illegal immigration. The Mexican's have a well thought out plan for dealing with illegals. They do not provide social services for their illegals, nor do they license them. Really a fabulous read the Mexican Constitution. Too bad Vicente Fox never read it, for if he had he wouldn't have lectured us so sanctimonously.

The biggest battle the US ever lost to Mexico was not when the Texans lost at the Alamo. It was when our politicians lost to them on the border!

Given that a major challenge of Latin America may be attributed to instability of political direction and inequality (read "widespread powerty") populism may actually present an attractive alternative for the deprived and needy providing hope and confidence in a future in their own country.
Provided an Obrador lead government is able to not only win the election - but also to deliver - a much needed period of decreased emmigration and increased internal economic activity may actually prove to be a better basis for interaction with the U.S.
The decisive factor will be whether the new governement will be given the opportunity and support to succeed.

-Did Clinton get rich by plundering money from oil wells?
-Was Al Gore found receiving large quantities of money from a corrupt businessman while Clinton was in office?
-Did Clinton focus on getting rid of poverty by giving away money to the needy?
-Did Clinton favor an economic policy that prevented foreign capital and focused solely on the "homegrown" economy?
-Did Clinton ban protests by saying they were part of a conspiracy to overthrow him?
-Did Clinton, while running for office, fill Times Square with his followers every month, paralyzing traffic?
-Did Clinton create a chasm between the rich and the poor?
-Did Clinton cut bureaucrats salaries in an attempt to create a surplus that will later allow him to improve the oil business infrastructure?
-Was Clinton ever major of a, er, major state or the capital of his country?
-Had Clinton, ever left his country before running for president?

The answers are all no, except for the last one. In the case of LÔøΩpez it would be the exact opposite: all would be yes, and the last one would be no.

Where are the similarities?

Excuse me Richard.... but trying to compare President Clinton with Obrador is about as futile as trying to compare a tiger to a banana. You are talking about comparing one of the most succesful politicians in recent history with a megalomaniac narcissistic messianic would-be-president of Mexico. What you are suggesting is not even absurd, it is downright idiotic. If you speak spanish I highly reccomend Enrique Krauze`s recent article, El mesiÔøΩas tropical, in which he dismisses each and every proposal of Obrador`s and finds the lack of viability in each and every one of them. If you are interested in any more references about Obrador, dont be afraid to contact me. IÔøΩd be glad to teach you some stuff.

I guess the real issue is how will Mexico tackle it's fundamental social problems? Canada and the USA both tackled unemployment, poverty and illiteracy through massive government intervention in the economy financed through taxation. The most rapid period of economic growth in both Canada and the USA happened when there was the greatest degree of taxation and government intervention in the economy - WW2. This fact is simply beyond dispute. Prior to WW2 the right was firmly in control in Canada, and their policies failed miserably. Since then, Canada has had a mixed economy, with a strong social democratic opposition federally, and with social democratic parties in power in many of the 10 provinces. The policies advocated by social democrats have come be be accepted by all parties, in fact, during each federal election, you would think that Canada has 3 social democratic parties, as the two right wing parties always try to sound 'social democratic' during each election, to avoid scaring the electorate. Mexico has the resources and economic foundation to transform the economy, and end the systemic poverty that afflicts Mexico, but this will not happen until the federal government attains the political will to make it happen, through regulation, taxation, and where needed, direct intervention in the economy. When you argue that you will create growth solely through the market econonmy, you are really saying that your are prepared to sacrifise the lives of the poor and the powerless, and that eventually, when enough corpses have piled up, suddenly you will have a north american standard of living.

Well, I have news for you. North America, including the USA, has achieved its current standard of living from a mixed economy, fueled by massive government intervention in the economy. The myth that it was all due to unrestricted capitalism, is just that- a myth. Since the US government has started to retreat from it responsibilities, the gap between the rich and poor is being to grow rapidly once again. The 'free market' cannot bring prosperity to the majority of people unless it is regulated, taxed and occaisionaly, coerced into doing so. This is the true lesson to be learned from a study of western economic and social history.

Last night, July 2nd at 11 pm, the president of the IFE, the federal electoral institute, came out on tv saying that the official quick count was too close to call and he asked all the candidates to wait until wednesday to know the results and the official winner. After him then our president came on tv to congratulate the people for their participation and to ask everyone to be pacient and to wait for the official results.
It was too much to ask for from Lopez Obrador... He quickly came out to declare himself the winner and to demand from IFE to respect his results, that is how he put it, to respect his own results, which clearly indicated he was the winner.
Naturally Mr. Calderon had to come out, not doing so would have been like recognising the lie.
Next day in Mexico's mainstream media,leftist hypocrate and biased journalists who populate our most important tv, radio and newspapers networks where very quick to condem both candidates for being so irresponsable, and never stated the fact that Calderon only came out to set the record straight: that all the polls and the official results gave him a very closed victory.
Same for the president of the IFE and the IFE itself, under presure from the build up of people at the zocalo by the irresponsable Lopez Obrador who as soon as he knew he was losing the election set up a plan to destroy the IFE's reputation and is now claiming fraud.
Had Mr. Calderon come out first, the media wouldn't have been so forgiving with him, today they would be calling him all kinds of things.
Victor Trujillo, Joaquin Doriga, Adela Micha, Loret de Mola, Carmen Aristegui are all in the same boat, biased towards Lopez Obrador, are afraid of critizing him even slightly.
They were all behind all the mediatic bubble created about Calderon's brother in law alleged wrongdoing, none of which has been proven at all so far today, and were also very quick to cover Lopez Obrador poor and patetic performance at the debates.
Apparently they did not convince enough people to vote for their candidate.

All those who are fascinated by AMLO fail to see what he really is about. He is no leftist, just a populist, old-style PRI politician. More like a fascist than a true liberal. His proposals seem taken out of a Luis Echeverria speech (Luis Echeverria, Mexican president from 1970-1976). Those of you that remember Echeverria's administration will recall his enormous failure, his desdain for the rule of law (unjustified land expropriations), very bad human rights record (masterminded the 1968 killing of students and demostrators in his capacity of Secretary of the Interior), and dismal financial record (big peso devaluation). And yet, they seem fascinated with a former mayor whose major "achievements" are the following:
1. Won the government of Mexico city without meeting requirements to run.
2. Left Mexico city in the worst insecurity ever; the citizens' hope is to return home alive. Argued the largest demostration ever against criminality was a plot against him
3. Failed to improve water supply to the city; in fact, it only got worse.
4. His administration made a few traffic-oriented works, but they were directed to the rich and not the poor he says he represents and works for.
5. Failed to improve the city subway; again, it only got worse than it was.
6. His inner circle was very corrupt (Bejarano, Ponce, Imaz and the like).
7. His chief political officer is the "king of roadblocks", whose abilities were recently put into light by the Wall Street Journal.
8. Alienated the chief employers in Mexico city (foreign corporations, big Mexican corporations), who he deems his enemies.
9. Raised property taxes, but only selectively, targeting opposition-controlled territories.
10. Hijacked the PRD's party leadership, effectively pushing Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, the so-called "moral leader of the PRD", out of the party.
11. Put Mexico city in the record books with 17,000 plus illegal drug "stores".
12. Put Mexico city in the record books with 100,000 plus unlicensed taxi cabs.
So, you can't be serious, he is no Clinton and his charisma resonates on the bad personality issues of most of his followers: huge resentment, huge fear to face reality, enormous desire for the government to become a paternal figure and take care of all the problems.
So, you may want to come to Mexico city and live here for a couple of months. Then, you may want to revise your comments.

First of all, I am an American expat living in Guadalajara. I have lived here over a year now, and have lived and worked in most all of the countries in Latin America, including the Carribean, Central and South America. I first came to Mexico in 1994, and have seen both the Mexican economy and population explode since then. Compared to other Latin American countries Mexico has by far the highest standard of living and the most opportunities for people who want to advance their economic situation. The economy here could grow much faster if the government would liberalize the banking laws, and foster change in the business practices of most of the business and entreprenures that create jobs. The main problem here is that it is difficult and expensive to borrow money. For example, the typical auto lone costs arounds 18%, and mortgage rates here are 3 times as high as in the U.S. Most businesses fund their growth internally, and own their inventory paying for all with company profits. That stunts growth, and keeps company cash tied up. If more people and companies put their money in banks, the availability of money to lend would skyrocket, lowering overall interest rates, thus spurring growth.

Regarding Lopez Obrador and Felipe Calderon, Calderon is the obvious best chance for expanding the Mexican economy. Lopez Obrador used the campaign slogan "first help the poor", but he forgot to add the words "get jobs" to the end of the slogan. He thinks that government can create jobs by raising taxes, which is a fast way to an economic slowdown as we all know by experience. If Lopez Obrador wins, be ready for double the number of illegal Mexicans crossing into the US, because he will truly crash the economy here.

Vicente Fox has been a voice of moderation in the Americas. Which has made him the perfect target of extremists on both sides. His friendship with George W Bush didn't get Mexico anything but a backlash from anti-immigration fanatics. His strong support for Democracy -for instance at the time of the coup against Hugo Chavez- got him angry words from Washington and insults from Caracas.

What will the next president stand for? As a South-American, I do feel AMLO is the Mexican version of Hugo Chavez or Evo Morales: good intentions, nonsense proposals, anti-americanism. Calderon sounds a lot like Fox, but with charisma.

Calderon will face huge problems: poverty, corruption, immigration, threats of rebellion in some states, trade, crime and drugs. All this with a very tiny margin of political support. For Mexico is the door of North-America, Calderon's actions will help shape the western hemisphere in the decades to come.

There are a number of interesting things that are arising in these hours of uncertainty prior to the IFE's anticipated 'final count' to begin Wednesday, not the least of which is the status of the PRI on Mexico's political stage. After 71 years of single party rule and a six-year term by an opposing party with a brief period of uncertainty when it was not entirely clear whether the PRI was capable or not of making a comeback, Mexicans have voiced their political wills and the results call for a brief reflection on the party that seems to be slowly slipping towards the fringes of Mexican politics.
Yesterday, Mexico took its most important step in routing the PRI machinery from its political system. No matter who wins the race between Calder󮠡nd L󰥺 Obrador, the voters have made sure that the PRI loses at everything that was decided Sunday. The PRI was unable to secure a majority for Roberto Madrazo, its candidate, in the presidential elections in any of the states, it saw any remaining political presence in Mexico City all but disappear and, most importantly for the prospects of its current political position, whereby it has projected power only through its majority in Congress, it abruptly became the third party in both Chambers of the Mexican Legislative Branch. This, of course, has much to do with the nature of this particular campaign: the voters have been so focused on the extremely tight race (too close to call after a preliminary vote of 98% of the ballots) between the two front runners, whose personalities and political ability dwarfed Mr. Madrazo's awkward style and irrelevant rhetoric.
Once outside his party, where his bullying and henchman tactics are tolerated, Mr. Madrazo seemed ridiculously out of place, at times a sad caricature of the PRI strongmen of the past. Which goes to show how far Mexico has come in the decade since the PRI began to lose its formerly unassailable grip on power. Before then, Madrazo would have come to epitomize power, his many shortcomings brushed away by the certainty of his victory and the well-oiled power and clientelism machine he would have been set to inherit.
Now, the story is very different. His high pitched voice with a slight lisp studdering its way through weak personal attacks, ridiculous arguments and ambiguous political positions was as much a sound of the past as the absurd announcement of his party's victory coming out PRI headquarters early Sunday night.
Though Madrazo was undoubtedly a poor choice for his party, there is probably no one bar Senator Manuel Bartlett who better represents everything that is wrong with the PRI and Mexico's embarrassing political past: bully politics, authoritarianism, lack of political clarity, clientelism and lies.
The party tried to position itself as 'el Nuevo PRI' for this election: a party that had renewed its political agenda and, to put a mild spin on its 71 years of corrupt dictatorship, would build on its vast experience in government ('El PRI s̆≥abe gobernar'). The branding, which began a couple of years before the election, came along with some eye-catching, though bizarre billboards showing pregnant women or embryos accompanied by the slogan 'Renovarse o morir.'
In the best tradition of classical PRI doublethink, the party, after dedicating a great deal of effort and resources to promoting itself as a renewed political force, picked one of its 'dinosaurs' as its presidential candidate. The son of a man who was himself a PRI dinosaur once barely overlooked for a presidential 'dedazo,' Madrazo has been part of the PRI's mainstream his entire life. In the southern state of Tabasco, during Zedillo's presidency in the 90's, Madrazo took over the governorship after an election mired in controversy and contested results that were never reviewed. The day he sat in the Governor's office for the first time, he gleamed claiming to finally be sitting in the chair his father had once occupied many years before. In its meticulously orchestrated extension of power, based on clientelist relationships and personal favor peddling, the PRI had created many such pockets of local dynastic succession. Some had become so consolidated that even the President found it hard at times to reign them in. In an attempt by Zedillo to defuse the crisis generated by the electoral controversy in Tabasco, Madrazo was offered a Federal SecretarÌ°†if he stepped down. The TabasqueÒ؆≤efused and, as a testament to his power amongst old guard priistas (who hated maverick Zedillo), he suffered no consequences within the party. The loser in Tabasco then was LÛ∞•∫ Obrador. Things in Tabasco are different now and Madrazo was unable to win the very district where he voted.
Faced with this surreal set of contradictions, most Mexicans were not surprised. PRI doublethink had been the mainstaple of the Mexican political system for many decades. Only this weekend, all Mexicans had a choice. And they chose to look to the future, whether it be with a leftist populist or a center right pro business president.
The PRI also had a choice, and it chose to stay in the past. Now it has moved closer to consolidating its position as an outdated, outclassed third political force. If Calder󮠷ins, the PAN will become the party of stability, the PRD will be the revolutionary opposition and the PRI will be relegated to a third and ambiguous field that will no doubt grow increasingly nebulous as it rushes to form alliances with different to take back some of the power it has lost. So many years of uncontested power have hampered the PRI's ability to define itself and have eliminated the need to create a party identity (as opposed to a party-in-power identity). If the PRI is to survive for six more years (not to mention the imminent internal squabbling that will result from Sunday's catastrophic defeat) and become a credible political force for the next elections, it would do well to begin by taking its own slogans seriously. There is no place in Mexico's future for a fossil of its political past. Renovarse o morir is the only way, no matter how painful that may be for some PRI fixtures and their cronies. Those men were called 'dinosaurios' even in the PRI heyday, foretelling, perhaps unwittingly at the time, their eventual and inevitable extinction. They may go down on their own or take the party down in flames with them, but one thing is certain, Mexicans won't miss them either way.

All of you, those who claim that AMLO will be a great president are saying nonsense, you don´t live in Mexico, not even in Mexico City wich now has the most corrupt goverment of the last 10 years, you only are people who see the things from the exterior, you don´t see the full picture, you don´t hear the lies that every day say MR Lopez while he was the Mayor of this city, you don´t see his secretary of goverment put dollars in the pockets of his suit, you don´t live the abuses of the corrupt police in charge of Marcelo Ebrard (now the Mayor), you don´t live the brutality of the crime and the fear to go out and walk in the streets, you don´t see how the drugs consume our children outside of the schools... all of this was the result of the "Goverment of Hope" that AMLO implement in Mexico City the so called "Ciudad de la esperanza" (city of hope), yes, hope for not die killed in the streets, hope for our children not to be catch for the narco and became addicts, hope for survive in this chaotic city, hope for not loose your job, that is the way of Lopez Obrador...¿you see? you don´t know NOTHING.

All of you, those who claim that AMLO will be a great president are saying nonsense, you don¥t live in Mexico, not even in Mexico City wich now has the most corrupt goverment of the last 10 years, you only are people who see the things from the exterior, you don¥t see the full picture, you don¥t hear the lies that every day say MR LopËz while he was the Mayor of this city, you don¥t see his secretary of goverment put dollars in the pockets of his suit, you don¥t live the abuses of the corrupt police in charge of Marcelo Ebrard (now the Mayor), you don¥t live the brutality of the crime and the fear to go out and walk in the streets, you don¥t see how the drugs consume our children outside of the schools... all of this was the result of the "Goverment of Hope" that AMLO implement in Mexico City the so called "Ciudad de la esperanza" (city of hope), yes, hope for not die killed in the streets, hope for our children not to be catch for the narco and become addicts, hope for survive in this chaotic city, that is the way of Lopez Obrador...øyou see? you don¥t know NOTHING.

How can Mr Lopez Obrador obtain 370,855í397,251 pesos yearly in order to raise salary in 20% of all those people which earn less tan 9000 pesos?

Great discussion people. But It appears that Calderon will take it this times. 98% and more than 400,000 thousand votes. It remindes me of the Kennedy Nixon election. 1 vote is one vote. President Calderon

I would like to know where some of you got the idea that Lopez Obrador is something like a modern Roosvelt or Clinton. I guess your beliefs come from the writings of some mexican pseudo-intelectuals like Sergio Aguayo or Monsivais who were brainwashed at our UNAM national university. You should know that most of the points of view of these Mexican leftist writers, painters and singer are compromised by favors from PRD officials, who learned a lot from Fidel Castro about purchasing intelectuals with gifts like opening a museum in their name or building more galleries for elite painters and subsidizing the printing and promotion of books of these writers who are friendly towards them and share their ideals of communism.
Now Chavez from Venezuela is doing the same thing and a whole bunch of leftist pseudo-intelectuals feeling orphans for the demise of the soviet union and looking desperately to find another golden cow to adore.
These leftist intelectuals and others in the media helped create the perception that Lopez Obrador was well ahead in the polls, they were desperate to say so in the last days of the elections and even though they dominate the media, on tv, radio and newspapers, the results of the elections show they are totally disconnected from reality, only a mere third percent of the Mexican people voted for him and mostly in the state they govern, where are the 10 points of advantage they claimed to have before the election? Where are all that mayority of poor mexican peasants and farmers and unemployed who according to national and international biased media were going to vote for Lopez Obrador? The results of the elections show that the Mexicans are not dumb people, as poor as we are, we read and we choose, and the great mayority of us reject populism and socialism.
And by the way, some of the people writing here are trying to tell us that Clinton and other former american presidents were socialist and that that is why the economy of that country expanded so much. Get real, if socialism works so well, why has the european union growth so little in three decades? Those European countries with socialist governments, each one of them with their little and very protected state or private telecommunication monopolies, why did they missed the internet and technological revolutions of the Reagan and Clinton terms? Why did their Lisboa Project of becoming the most dynamic and powerful continent of the world fail? The Europeans like to call their capitalism in different names, they call it socialdemocracy, social this and social that, all of that just because their are so embarrased to say that they are copying all the Americans have done to become the most powerful nation in the world. Now the Europeans are very proud of their Anti-monopoly institution, but they created it more than a hundred years after the United States did it. Now they all have independent central banks, now they all are free trade promoters, and the list goes on. Get real, socialism is a lost cause.

As an American I take no position as between the three Mexican presidential candidates. In the abstract it seems that the PAN platform points most accurately in the direction Mexico needs to go, but no campaign platform can be more than an approximation of what an elected president's policies will be.

Mexico is a Third World country, daily losing many of her most industrious citizens to her giant first world neighbor. To stop this, she must become a first world country. This means more, not less movement in the direction of liberalization, stable property rights, and limits on government intervention in the business sector — but it also means more focus on Mexico's neglected public infrastructure, particularly primary and secondary education, than has been seen heretofore.

No President by himself can make these things happen. But the present situation with respect to the Mexican economy and its ability to create jobs in Mexico is not healthy. To keep Mexicans from leaving for the United States, Mexico must become more like the United States. This does not mean just that it must alter its economic policies, though that is part of it. It means also that Mexican leaders must recognize what made the United States the kind of place that Mexicans want to live and work in. In large measure this is a public sector that serves the public interest, not as a source of income for supporters of the ruling party — the Mexican model for decades — but as a source of services that can help the able among Mexico's poor to become productive members of society.

Prior to World War two, Canada was usually viewed a forgotten, and frozen, part of the British Empire. While the country had enjoyed some economic growth before and after World war one. By 1939, the Canadian economy had stalled. There was massive unemployment, and the spectre of actual atarvation, stalked the country, and many poor Canadians died from malnutrition. About a million Canadians departed for the USA to find work. The right wing Canadian governments that were in power at this time, claimed that they could do nothing for the poor, that the government could not run a deficit, or dare to intervene in the economy to create employment. In 1939 Britain declared war on Germany and one week later Canada loyaly followed. Suddenly, the government, which claimed to be powerless and penniless, began a huge program of military spending. After France fell in 1940, this military build up began to speed up even more. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF, now the NDP) Canada's social democratic party began to become much more popular, not only because they supported the war effort, but also because they had argued, before the war, that the government could intervene in the economy to end poverty and create employment and economic growth. Under pressure from the CCF, the Canadian government transformed Canada into a social democracy, with a 'cradle to the grave' system of social benefits while at the same time greatly increasing economic growth. The standard of living of Canadians increased dramatically during the war, yet Canada was also able to build a massive military machine, and a very powerful, industrializd economy. In 1945, Canada, with only 12 million citizens, had the 3rd largest navy in the world, the 4th largest airforce, and one of the most powerful armies in the world. Before WW2, Canada had built only a few samll aircraft, after the war, for example, we were building massive numbers of the most advanced aircraft and were designing aircraft that were in advance of anything seen in any other country.
During the war the government intervened massively in the economy creating new state owned industries where needed, and did not hesitate to expropriate inefficient private companies, if their management hindered the war effort. Taxation rates increased dramatically to pay for the war but this did not slow the economy, rather the redistribution of capital to industrial investment and social spending dramatically boosted economic growth.In fact all the wealth of every citizen was liable to be expropriated if needed. Canada has continued along the path of social democracy, of a mixed private and public economy, and today our standard of living is equal to the USA and will probably exceed it in the near future. Our publicly owned social infrastructure is giving us a competetive edge over the USA, and, as a result, we have turned NAFTA to our advantage.

The moral of this story is that Government intervention in the economy works - World war 2 proved this, and laid the foundation for our current properity, both here and in the USA, whose government enacted, similar, social democratic policies during WW2. A 'war on poverty' by a Mexican government, would achieve a similar transformation of the economy, if it is carried out skillfully and boldly, while agressively combatting corruption and inefficiency.

Microsoft was created by a person, or a group of persons, it was never created by a multinational corporation, same for McDonald's, Burger King, IBM, KFC, Office Depot, Sony, Apple, Bayer, Boeing, etc. All these companies were created by industrious people and many people have benefited from their wealth, inventions and contributions to sciences accross all disciplines. They were not the creation of a greater conspiracy to control mankind or else. In 70 years of communism, the Soviet Union contributed almost nothing in medicine, biology, and many other sciences, they dedicated themselves to build nuclear weaponry and the rest of the world will hardly remember them for any technology or inventions in other fields. No so with the United States, those of you who hate that country so much and ally yourselves with dumb dictators like castro and chavez and else, use, enjoy, buy and benefit from all the social, economical and technological contributions of the United States, the least you should say at least is Thank you sir! before you start writing your hatred in your ms word processor against the USA and the companies from that country that provide so much work for many people in the world and spread wealth, technologies and education around the globe like no other revolution in history has ever done before.
That is what I want for my country, and that is why I voted for Felipe Calderon today and I pray that he will win at the end of the day.
I do not believe in Lopez Obrador for the same reason I don't believe in Fidel Castro, who on top of destroying the life of entire generations of Cubans, has got huge millionaire accounts in big banks from Europe. And now Hugo Chavez is doing exactly the same with Venezuela, and he wants to stay in powers, just like Castro in Cuba. What a great system is socialism! What a way to destroy the future of a people.

As a Canadian, I find it amazing how officials of the Bush regime feel free to critize Obrador, and prophesize doom and gloom for Mexico if he wins, but then act dismayed if Obrador dares to critize the USA! If I was a Mexican, the arrogant attitude of the Bush government would certainly cause me to support Obrador, if only out of self respect. I have had a chance to see some of the poverty in Mexico, and believe me, the longer a social democratic government is delayed, the more likely that Mexicans will turn to other methods to achieve some measure of social justice. No nation can endure such a wide gap between the rich and poor, and maintain any hope for democracy, at some point Mexicans will turn to a Franco or a Castro, but the current situation is untenable. As the USA moves to choke off illegal immigration, they will be igniting the social powder keg, simmering away in Mexico. Immigration allowed the keg to vent without bursting by enabling a huge segment of the Mexican populace to supplement their income and send money to their families while working in the USA. As the campaign against the 'illegals' intensifies, it will also intensify the disparity between rich and poor in Mexico.

It is surprising to see all those who support PAN worship FREE TRADE as the key for a better future. Mexico has to develop its educational level before getting into FREE TRADE. We Mexicans are not ready for competing with a global market. Unless, of course, these people's conception of competition means having a whole bunch of Gringo corporations in their hometowns. I am speaking in behalf of what I can perceive and experience in my hometown. Recently we got all those corporations any enslaved mentallity would love to have to get into consumerism: Sam's Club, McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Office Depot, Walmart and so on. While quite a few of the local businesses are running out because they DONOT represent the FREE MARKET. Is sad to see how T.V. is the teacher of kids and consumerism is the leader to follow.
We definetly need a new way of living. I am true that AMLO is not everything we need and not definetly the best choice, but is a good as is going to get this year and may mean a different beginning. We cannot enslave ourselves to those corporations and depend on them for the future. Just look at the US and you will realize that, if you need a notebook or some school supplies —to use as an example— you HAVE to go to a corporation, not to the local store where you may be greeted by a person who knows YOU and your family and is part of your community. Family, therefore is the core of society. Keep that in mind. Corporations destroy the family concept.

Lopez Obrador does not represent any change for the future of the country. He will not privatize PEMEX, or CFE or anything else, nor will he bring any more investment and competition into these areas of our economy. These simple decisions will take away from Mexico, another 2 or 3 decades of absolutely no technological progress in these areas, we will continue depending on energy technologies created in the USA, a competitive market where every company strives to provide the best energy at the best price. This lack of progress will also take place in most industry areas dominated or highly controlled by our Mexican government, like postal services, ports, etc and other industries dominated by private monopolies that grew in the last 20 or more years and that want the status quo to continue and the best is a state controlled economy that does not promote competition.
While the United States and Europe and many countries in Asia have already understood that the more economic freedoms the people have, the richer the country will be and the better the citizens will live.
These countries are already looking and thinking about the stars, they are trying to reach the stars beyond our skies.
Because the economic theories and formulas to make a country and its people rich are no secret to anyone, they have been tested and they work and they are there for the taking, but they are not easy, they are not sweet. We in Mexico are still paying for socialist governments like Lazaro Cardenas, a stupid idealist who created PEMEX, that monster of corruption that has been a burden for mexicans, and he also distributed the land to thousands of poor farmers for free, creating our great farming industry of today, where 95% of our farmers work in private farms accross the rio grande. Yet our country has managed to grow a little in spite of these many terrible mistakes of past populist and socialist governments and in spite also of a congress that will not pass any structural reform needed. Although we now have an Autonomous Central Bank, which mr. obrador has threatened several times, and we have an institutional banking system which mr. obrador threatens everytime he has a chance, and an internal revenues institution for which mr. obrador has no respect at all, including our fiscal secret, and our economy now enjoys low inflation rates, low interest rates, our federal reserves are higher than ever, which mr. obrador wants to spend in a year or two to increase his popularity, and our country is much less dependent on oil revenues because we have developed an industrial base, we still need to advance more in our market reforms.
But our country is still half socialist and we still suffer from many state monopolies and other private monopolies, TELMEX, for example, is a private monopoly belonging to Mr. Carlos Slim, a very good friend of Mr. Lopez Obrador and his business partner as well and one Mr. Obrador has promised to defend from the bad guys in the PAN (supported by salinas, according to him) who want to bring some competitiveness and fair play into the telephone industry and market and bring about better prices and services for the mexican people and more competition and more private investigation and development of technologies.
Mr. Obrador does not propose any change you see, he proposes to continue with the same semi-communist system.

Just to heat up the debate...
According to an investigation by the Centro de Investigacion y Docencia Economica (CIDE), enterprises in Mexico illegaly evade up to 35% of their dues in taxes. This amount is equivalent to almost 2.3% of Mexican GNP. If anyone is wondering what will be the origin of the resources for AMLO's ambitious proyect, look no further. A mixed strategy of tax simplification and corruption erradication will provide a most efficient substitute to the tax reform supported by the PAN (which emphazises on establishing added value taxes on food, medicines and books).

Calderon in one of his most repeated slogans, stated that he was the only candidate that arrived to the elections with "clean hands". You must be aware of the recent scandals where this presidential hopeful, in his very, very brief tenures as administrator of Banobras and Secretary of Energy, established several contracts with a number of enterprises owned by his brother-in-law, Diego Zavala. According to Mexican law, public administrators cannot establish contracts with relatives up to the 4th degree. From these contracts, Zavala has profited for more than $250 million dollars (paying next to nothing in taxes). Don't take my word on this. Search for "Hildebrando" in the "Secretaria de Fomento" webpage and see for yourselves. Regretably, the media have dismissed this information.

A couple of days before the election, Carmen Aristegui, a renowned mexican journalist, discovered that it was possible to access confidential information regarding the data bases of the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) from one of the PAN's webpages. Using the password "Hildebrando" she was able to access information concerning her own name, adress, age, etc. According to the electoral law (Cofipe) this information should be beyond the reach of both political parties or individual citizens. This could very well prove to be the biggest electoral scandal since the "Pemexgate".
As a proud Mexican citizen, I refuse to cast my vote for a candidate or party that doesn't abide by the electoral institutions so many of us fought to erect.

For all of you who think that Mexico needs a new path, and that Lopez Obrador is the leader for taking us to that path, I have some news (bad) for you: He is like a President from the '70s, and as a every mexican who lived that period knows very well, our economic disaster started right there, so, Lopez Obrador is like President Lopez Portillo reloaded.

By the way, for all of you economic experts, every progress made by mankind started beneficiating the privileged first (economic, social, religious), then the rest of the society. Sure this way looks bad, but every other way has gone (really) the wrong way.

There are several point that I would like to comment:

1.- Economy: for those who say that Obrador will take out the economic measures that President Salinas bring to Mexico, here a declaration from Franciso Ramirez de la O (Lopez Obrador's top financial adviser), when asked that the Obrador's and Salinas economics were very alike: "Well yes, all our economic plans are like the Salinas carried out". So what will be the difference with the "devil" Salinas?
2.- Economy 2: There is no country in the world that have significant and continuos economic progress that used the same measures that Lopez Obrador is proposing, but there are several ones that improved their economies (and people's welfare)using the ones that Calderon is proposing (i.e. flat tax at Ireland)
3.- Transparency: Every government in the world look for cover their "secrets". Why? Because nobody in the world likes to look bad, or even worse, get caught committing a crime, so the openness to make all the government operations be transparent is a key issue to ensure the success of the society (not necessarily of the goverment). In this key issue, Lopez Obrador record is at least REALLY BAD. For example, he blocked every attempt to create a truly independent commision to supervise the Mexico City Government operations . Every time a top official was discovered in a criminal act(there were several, including his treasury secretary, his personal secretary, a top elected official from his party), Lopez Obrador's only response was: "There is a conspiracy against me", and never initiated a serious investigation to find the facts (actually only one of several of those top officials are in jail) the others are walking free.
4.- There is a saying that states: "Never expect that your problems will be solved by the Government, because they always will give you less than will take it from you". Lopez Obrador think that government should resolve our problems, instead of creating the conditions for solving the problems by ourselves.

I hope our country may leave behind our long history of looking for the "providence man" that will solve all our problems. In that sense Lopez Obrador is the worse option for us, and Calderon the least bad. For all the mexicans to take that option, will also mean that we will be willing to take responsibility for our acts instead of to blame (or expect to solve) our problems by others (for example: the government, the rich, the USA, and a very long etc.)

PS.- By the way you know that real name of Lopez Obrador is Manuel Andres Lopez Obrador (MALO = Bad in spanish) not AMLO as he proclaims. How can you trust a man that even his name is false?

For last three decades US pursuing a policy for South America and Asia to incourage and support the rulers of their choise hving the ideology acceptable to US government. For this venture many times they have to keep blind eyes on human rights violation and true democrasy.

unfortunately the results are not so fvourable. in fact the countries having true democrasies but having different opinion than US now becoming more freindly to US. i think this is the time US should respect the voice of the people and give deplomcy a chance to pursuade th peoples for a free choice of their leaders.

If you depend on the next mans economy, you can never stand on your own two feet to build your own cause you have already bowed down like a wimpering dog. Just feed me, I'll do as you will. Therefore if you actually live in the Mexico, you should really not feed upon depending on the next man cause its you or him, and you aint him, and he will easily discard you for the next big thing. Learn the ways of capitalistic life, then make the decision. Better yet learn history. Don't believe the false dreams being sold so that one in every million can have something, while the rest slave for nothing, just to live a routine to keep life from boredom. To be looked down upon for the simple fact that their ancestors had to much carino to do what the cold faced ancestors of the eyes staring at you chose to do. Oh, and by the way, the only people in Mexico providing half ass oppurtunity only went over there cause they pay the gente a lot less for a lot more. Being in the confinement of the estados unidos it is easy to tell who the real workers are. If these men want something done, they get our gente, use us for 8 hours and then throw us out like we are nothing to them. Why, cause we are nothing to them, cause we are dependent on them, and unable to be dependent on our own. Make the problem, give them the cure,the eyes are succas for allure. Cut the roots and the body can only live so little after. So eat of their cabbage if you wish. But remember, you only one vein is needed to infect whole body. A lot of people in the political world are the viruses that have been prepared waiting to infect the gente with their uprooted way of thinking. They are the cabbage that will never have known its roots, and they are the poison that slowly infects the minds of those that will never gain, just become infected with the aids of the political world. One dose of antidote, but millions are infected. Don't be the wimpering dog that chased the sticc all day just for a bone, when you could be the wolf that got the whole body. Stand on your own 2 feet.

It is amusing and amazing how Mr. Flores repeats again and again all the poisonous anti-AMLO remarks that were at the core of the political message from the PAN, Mr. Calderon's party. They label their adversaries with vitriolic epitethets without really engaging in discussion. Is'n it shameful to acuse UNAM, the main university in the country, and according to the London Times, one of the 100 best in the world, to turn out "pseudo-intelectuals?" Isn't a bit selfish to proclaim personal fears of losing property, while 50% of the Mexican people live in abismal poverty? Why is Mr. Lopez more dangerous than Mr. Calderon? Any change represents a risk; the future doesn't exist. The election of a candidate has to be based, always imperfectly, on his or her past performance as a politician. I saw my country go to shambles during the PRI administrations. I was forced to emigrate by the neo-liberal policies favored by Salinas, and dutifully spoused by Calderon. I have witnessed positive developments in Mexico City during the PRD administrations. If I could vote, I would do it for AMLO. I don't believe he is a saint, but I have not seen the "devil" that many who favor PAN want to see, on the basis many times of irrational fears propagated by Mr. Calderon's party. I don't believe he will meet all his campaign promises, but what politician can? Mexico will be no paradise any time in the near future, but I think it's time to try an alternative to the immobility that Richard depicts well. I believe that we have to do something quickly to ease the horrific economic inequalities in the country; if we don't, we may be sorry fairly soon...

There are only two ways for a country to succeed economically. Promoting free trade, market economy and more investments that bring jobs and more jobs (Calderon). The other one is letting everything in the hands of the government, raising salaries by decree without considereing the small buissnesmen and women (Obrador) clearly the second one has failed all over the world. I prefer to follow the steps of the market economy countries were poverty rates are low and growth exists, rather than following Castro`s or Chavez`s endless speeches that leave millons of people in poverty.

I envy the luxury of many of you who have an opiniÚn in favor of Mr. Obrador, watching Mexico elections from the conmfort of your house in the US, not having to worry about your country going backwards to something that has already failed, and giving the back to the globalized world that already exists weather we like it or not.

M.Obrador represents the sentiments of a cross section of Mexicans and Latin Americans in general who reject neo-liberalist democracy based on the profit motive. Latin America after Argentina, saw the effects of these policies on the livelyhood of the people and in particular the middleclass. Conservatives such as Calderon, believe that democracy is based on markets(code word for capitalism. THis is the type of democracy propoagetd by the US. People, Mexicans in particular, want democracy that functions for them not for the world bank and their friends. In Mexico Obrador represents this trend , now seen across the world.It is about time to say no to Washington.

The comparison was between Mr. Obredor and President Clinton - not Clinton vs. Bush, Bush vs. Calderon, or Clinton vs. Calderon.

The frontrunners in this election have very different visions and proposals. Mexico's enormous potential remains unfulfilled considering the richness of its natural resources, its geographic location, its trading opportunities, and above all, the intelligence, skill, and natural talent of its people.

So, this election is a big deal. No one is above having their positions aggressively scrutinized and challenged. But critiquing or debating a candidate (or their proponent) is a long way from personal animosity. For myself, I have nothing but respect for anyone who is willing to put their views forward in a public forum such as this.

Amazing how much hatred some of you harbor toward Obrador!!!!

You want facts:

Thanks to President Clinton's fiscal policies, federal revenue (as % of GDP) increased during his term. As he left office, federal receipts totaled 21% of GDP. Since he has left, thanks to Calderon-like fiscal policy which Bush said would NOT negatively impact receipts, federal receipts have gone down to 17% of GDP.

In Mexico, government receipts do not even total 11% of GDP. And Calderon, through his "flat tax" (which President Clinton has spoken out against) federal revenue will decrease even more. Is this what Mexico needs?

As for President Clinton and "class warfare", apparently many of you are not aware of his comments regarding Bush's irresponsible tax cuts. On more than one occasion, President Clinton has stated that he does not need the tax cuts, that wealthy Americans like himself do not need more money, that government should have his money, so that it can address the problems of the disenfranchised. Now, who does that sound like?

Obrador, who has critized Hernandez for selling his bank for bank to Citigroup for over 10 billion dollars without paying one iota of tax, or Calderon, who has stated that the wealthy pay too much in taxes already, and has proposed a flat tax that will sig. reduce their tax "burden".

Cogntive dissonance is alive and well among Calderon supporters, as is Hatred.

Some very interesting (and some very strange and misinformed) comments on this site, thanks to all for a fascinating discussion.

My own two cents: what is this 'populist' label, which almost every AMLO opponent (and the Washington Post too) uses in an attempt to discredit him? What does it mean?

Let me start by saying that I find the 'populist' label confusing when applied to AMLO. My understanding is that in a democracy, the point of politics is to appeal to the electorate by proposing policies that the voters want. If that makes you a populist, isn't that a good thing?

This is what George W. Bush did in both his presidential campaigns, proposing tax cuts and military interventions that were very popular with much of the US electorate at that time. Is George W. Bush a populist?

Now some will say that what makes AMLO a populist are his 'irresponsible' promises to increase government services and thereby drive Mexico into a debt crisis.

But again, doesn't that make George W. Bush a populist too? He has increased the US budget deficit tremendously since he took office, from 0% in Clinton's last years in office to around 3% annually since then (also, remember that this number would be significantly higher if it did not include the Social Security surpluses the administration is currently raiding).

Meanwhile, AMLO inherited a massive debt in Mexico City (largely contracted by the PRI in the 1980s and 1990s) and succeeded in reducing that debt in each of his last four years in office.

So is AMLO really a nasty, dangerous 'populist'? Or is he a popular (and fiscally responsible) leftist?

Let's dispense with the epithets (the Washington Post included) and have a real discussion about the merits of the candidates.

An article in the Wall Street Journal is not evidence - it's analysis, and done by a newspaper with a long animosity to President Clinton. The facts are:

1) President Clinton cut government spending, specifically he cut spending on social programs like welfare. Mr. Obredor proposes to increase government spending, including spending on social welfare - the exact opposite of Clinton's approach.

2) President Clinton encouraged globalism and facilitated the ratification of NAFTA. Mr. Obredor's foreign policy is inward looking and isolationist.

3) Mr. Obredor has yet to make a speech or issue a statement, that I am aware of, that does not refer to "the elites". He overtly targets class resentment as a means of marketing himself. Bill Clinton never claimed to be the poor person's Robin Hood.

An even more interesting comparison touches on respect for electoral policy. At the highest point in his popularity there was much talk about amending the constitution so that Clinton could run again. He neither initiated it nor encouraged it. Obredor proposes electoral changes - now in the form of a midterm referendum, perhaps later in a more extreme form.

How misguided some of you are. The facts speak for themselves.

From 1982 to 2002, Mexico grew at a GDP/Capita pace of 0.6% a year. During the first five years of Fox's govt, the economy grew at a 0.8% clip. Calderon promises more of the same.

Since 1982, Asian economies, embracing the Democratic Party's mantra of effective intervention in the economy, have grown at a high single digit pace.

This election comes down to two philosophies of government. Obrador and the Democratic Party believe in the power of government, believe that government must intervene to curb the excesses of a market economy. Calderon and the GOP believe in the invisible hand of the market, and see no need for govt. intervention.

If you believe that Rubin/Clinton government intervention in the ecoomy is necessary, you vote for Obrador. If you believe that laissez-faire is best, and that Bush's tax cuts on the marginal rates have been effective, you vote for Calderon

I believe that President Clinton's government intervention led to the most prosperous period in US history, and, as such, I have (absentee ballot) already voted for Obrador.

the far right and yankee lovers have been srewing us for too long ermanos i ermanas stand up for yourselves obrador is the man

the far right and yankee lovers have been screwing us for too long ermanos i ermanas stand up for yourselves obrador is the man

Talk about poor Mexicans. From the moment we are born, we have access to state funded hospitals, for free, then we go to Elementhary school and it is free, books, chairs, classrooms, electricity,water, teachers, etc, included, free, then we go to High School and the same. University, well, we pay about 150 dollars a year in Monterrey for a state funded university with many faculties and laboratories and classrooms and conference rooms, and professors and administrative staff and a great library and internet access and sport facilities, etc. etc.
Then when it is time to start working, if we get any little job, we get Infonavit, a subsidized way to get a very soft credit for a little house usually built by the government and IMSS, social security, will cost you and your family no more than 250 dollars a year to get health services.
But the problem is, if you visit any small little town accross the country, there are no universities, no hospitals,no companies to work, because everybody there is waiting for the government to build them and to pay for everything they cost, but the government of Mexico has reached its limit, there isn¥t enough money in any government in the world to pay for all the services, and the education and health for the citizens and also give tax cuts and provide jobs. This is the kind of citizen that the paternalism and populism of former PRI government created.

Felipe Calderon is proposing to wake up the people and to let their free enterprise and talents participate more on helping educate people, building more hospitals and universities and research centers linked to production centers, invest more in more industries to create more jobs. Let private enterprise participate on the production of electricity and also participate on the oil industry and generate more growth and jobs. He proposes greater economic freedoms to let the people create their own wealth instead of depend of the miserable crumbs a communist government provides to its people.

In Mexico City, there are MANY professionals, especially those educated abroad, that will support Lopez Obrador. Why?

Because they see many similarities b/w him and President Clinton.

Some of you say that President Clinton supports a Republican-like economic policies???!!!! Apparently, you missed the Wall Street Journal editorial that castigated President Clinton's "class warfare" when he increased the top marginal rate to 39%, from 31%, as a way to enable government to better take care of the disenfranchised. Moreover, President Clinton has gone on record as recently as two months ago arguing that Bush's tax cuts have harmed the United States. Finally, President Clinton would never ever support a flat tax, which Caldeorn has made a cornerstone of his program.

With respect to education, both Clinton and Obrador realize that education increased productivity, which in turn increased GDP. Please note that Obrador founded the first new public university in Mexico City in over three decades.

Socially, an argument can be made that Obrador is to the Right of President Clinton. Please recall that President Clinton, to the dismay of RightWingers in the US, facilitated the enlistment of gays into the military. Clinton was also a champion for reproductive rights. Calderon is an opponent of both.

I still find it difficult to understand how any educated person can support Calderon. Mexico has grown 0.6% a year (GDP/Capita), from 1982 to 2002. During the first five years of Fox's tenure, the economy grew at a 0.8% clip. Calderon promises more of the same. And some of you actually support this man???!!!!

It has been asserted here that many professionals will vote for Mr. Obredor. I can only say that in my classes here in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, I haven't encountered a single college educated person who has stated or implied an intention to do so.

President Clinton fully supported a Republican like economic policy, including targeted tax cuts and reduced government spending. It was during his term that Welfare reform took place, for example. Mr. Obredor proposes the exact opposite. President Clinton espoused a social doctrine of encouraging the disadvantaged to use their own initiative to aleviate their condition, and, to my knowledge, never once played on their resentment and envy toward the rich.

This is not to compare the situation of a disadavantaged person in the USA to that of such a person in Mexico. Poor people in Mexico have a far greater reason for feeling that their problems are attributable to inept economic leadership by the upper class - it is stated merely to contend against a comparison between Clinton and Obredor - two men with very different economic and social development strategies.

I just wish Lopez Obrador will think a little, just a little like Bill Clinton, then a lot of people would not be so scare of him. And you can say whatever you want but the fact remains that on everyone of Lopez Obrador speeches, and they were legion, he always blame poverty on the free trade agreement with the United States, on the liberal economic measures taken by Presidents Fox and Zedillo, on the banking system, on the private industry and on free enterprise in general, all these things are responsible for the millions of poor mexicans. He has even hinted he will use the federal reserves to promote economic growth, in other words, spend the savings of my generation in one shot, and that also shows he has no respect for the autonomy of central banks, how will he ever, if he is so ignorant of how healthy economies like the United States or Canada work?.
Lopez Obrador is far from being anything close to Bill Clinton. Lopez Obrador comes from the PRI, he was a memeber of this party for many years and grew politically in that culture, very different from the Democratic Party, all the people around Lopez Obrador now come from the PRI, Manuel Camacho Solis, MuÒoz Ledo, Marcelo Ebrard, and etc. and just like the PRI in its best times, they do not hold internal elections, he has appointed candidates and party officials, he is the candidate of the PRD and its president and he is everything. That party today is everything he wants, Cardenas, Robles and others are gone, and their friends are being denied and ousted.
You can't say the same about Felipe Calderon, whose political career was always in the PAN and dates way back to the times when Lopez Obrador and Cardenas were proud members of the PRI and enjoyed all the privileges of power. Felipe Calderon went through democratic internal elections to become the presidential candidate of his party and against the will of the president and high members of his own party. He knows about economy and can hold discussions with anybody on economic, social, political, security issues and he has done it on many television interviews, same television programs where Lopez Obrador went to take the microphone, elude all questions, and talk forever against Salinas and liberalism and to spread hate and divide economic classes, they call him a little lighting of hope but his message is not about the hope and the future, it is about the past and about hate and divide. His stupid spots where they actually tell people "If you make less than 8,000 pesos then you need to hear what Lopez Obrador has to say to you" and they actually annuonce him as though he were a god or something like that!.
Get real!

What is truly pathetic is how little people know about President Clinton's economic policies, and how they favorably compare to Obrador's.

For those of you that don't know, the Wall Street Journal often called President Clinton a socialist and communist. They argued that his economic program was nothing more than populist class warfare. Moreover, when President Clinton increased the top marginal tax on the affluent, the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation (same two inst. adamantly against Obrador) predicted economic chaos.

And for those of you who don't believe that President Clinton believed in social engineering, well, there's nothing I can do for you, other than to say that you are very uninfored.

Here's an excerpt from a recent WSJ front page article, that lays out the differences between the Democratic Party and the GOP, between Obrador and Calderon. Obrador and Clinton believe in the power of government to curb economic and finacial excesses, while Calderon and Bush believe the market knows all.

———————————————————————

Alexander Hamilton
Is Man of the Hour
At Treasury Again

Secretaries Snow and Rubin
Are Both Laying Claim
To Predecessor's Blessing

By DAVID WESSEL

April 14, 2006; Page A1

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114497847289725813.html

So Mr. Snow, not surprisingly, was upset to see a prominent Democrat draping himself in Hamilton's cloak to criticize Bush administration policies. In a speech at the University of Mississippi this week, Mr. Snow protested that Hamilton's name had been "misappropriated" and challenged Mr. Rubin's reading of history. "Hamilton, after all, was foremost among the Founding Fathers in seeing that the new republic's future depended on the vitality of commerce and the private sector, while the authors of the Hamilton Project argue for a larger government role," said Mr. Snow.

Mr. Rubin is holding his ground. Hamilton, he says, "stood for the dual proposition that economic activity should be organized around markets, but that government had an important role in providing many of the requisites for economic success."

————————————————————————-

It is really patetical to compare Lopez Obrador, mediocre grades at UNAM, anti-american, populist, anti free trade, against free enterprise, against privatization, and believer in the power of the state to dictate the lives of the people, with Bill Clinton, a president who promoted free trade and helped create conditions for the United States economy to grow.
It will be more exact to compare Lopez Obrador with Hugo Chavez, they both share their destructive populism, their anti-americanism, their ingnorant knowledge of economy, their mesianism, their lack of respect for the Courts and the Law and their adherence to the tropical communism practiced by their so much admired and beloved alied Fidel Castro.

The reaction of many of you to AMLO is the same as the reaction of the RightWing in the US to President Clinton's candidacy. If you will recall, even as candidate, President Clinton was vilified by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation, with both organizations arguing that Clinton was a socialist whose economic policies would doom the United States. Then, when President Clinton increased the top marginal rate to 39% from 31%, more gloom and doom. To this day, the Wall Street Journal and the American RightWing refuse to give President Clinton credit for the most prosperous economic period we have ever experienced.

As to Obrador, as someone with dual citizenship who has worked in Mexico City's financial sector, you can't imagine how many educated prosperous Mexicans are hoping that he wins. Frankly, they are tired of economic stagnation. From 1982 to 2002, on a GDP/Capita basis, Mexico grew 0.6% a year. During the first five years of Fox's tenure, Mexico grew at 0.8% a year. Asia has grown at high single digits during the same timeframe. Why?

It has to do with the debate that Snow and Rubin recently had in this country. Lopez Obrador and his campaign team, like President Clinton, believe in the power of government, believe that laissez-faire capitalism does not work, and that an economy can't function properly without government intervention. Calderon, like Bush, believes that the markets know all.

As to Obrador's fiscal policies, do not fret. One of the cornerstones of his economic program are public works in conjuction with the private sector, which are very dependent on low interest rates. He realizes that the moment that the fin. markets perceive fiscal profligacy, they will bid up LT rates, anathema to his program.

The real question that leaves me puzzled is where AMLO will get the money to fund his ambitious plans. It has been said that he governed responsibly as Mayor, leaving only a $3 billion deficit.(That doesn't sound healthy to me.) Nevertheless, will AMLO harm the economy as he tries to implement his program. He will be elected because he has promised the most in aid to the poor. Calderon did not.

There are many videos and documents bearing testimony of the corruption during Lopez Obrador's term as governor of DF. When these videos were made public showing his partners taking money and putting it in plastic bags, the reaction from Lopez Obrador was not of shame or anger, instead he started accussing political adversaries and others, he accussed President Fox, former President Salinas de Gortari (who has been more than 12 years absent from politics already but is still highly unpopular) and he even went on to say that the videos were produced by the CIA (capitalizing on antiamericanism created by the Irak war to his advantage)and he did everything to make himself look like a victim of a greater conspiracy to stop his candidacy. In the process, Mexico's vast poor and uneducated population believed the story of the conspiracy and the mayority of intelectuals and journalists of the country, most of them educated at the UNAM by professors who spread leftist ideologies, communism, antiamericanism, marxism, these biased intelectuals and journalists were very happy to follow Lopez Obrador's game even when they themselves addmitted not to believe the stupid stories of a plot from the Fox administration to justify the videos. I do not think Lopez Obrador will win but if he does, these stupid pseudointelectuals and biased journalist who have defended him and idealized him so much, they will be in for a big surprise because the man is an ignorant whose only motivation is power and greed.

The danger Obredor poses, if he were able to implement his policies, comes in five forms: 1) his willingness to change the electoral process (as in his idea of a midterm referendum), 2) the widespread capital flight that will occur if he wins, 3) the draw down of the country's reserves to finance his populist initiatives, 4) his plan to renegotiate or ignore international trade agreements, such as Nafta, and 5) the increase of friction between the upper, middle, and lower classes in the country. The consequence of each and all of these points would be a destabilization of Mexico.

The threat to Mexico's fledgeling democracy dies not come from populism, but from the dangerous social inequality and high levels of corruption. Among the parties in the fray, Obrador's PRD is the least corrupt, and only Obrador is seriously addressing the question of social inequality head-on.

Felipe Calderon of PAN, who is the technocratic candidate, does not seem to have any real concern for Mexico's poor. Under a possible Calderon presidency, economic inquality and poverty is likely to persist, posing a sharp threat to democracy.

What is needed in Mexico are political stability in Mexico and lasting growth, and neither of this is possible without narrowing the huge economic divide between the rich and poor. Obrador's redistributive economic program seems likely to be effective without disrupting private ownership and markets. While tackling inequality will require an increase in tax revenues, Obrador has promised to accomplish it by eliminating tax privileges for the rich, limiting tax evasion, fighting corruption, and reducing outrageously high salaries for some government officials. This is not populism or demagoguery, but simply good policy.

As a successful and highly admired mayor of Mexico City, Obrador has already proved to be a resourceful and able official. He deserves to be the next President of Mexico. He will represent a breath of much-needed fresh year and a welcome change from the long string of PRI administrations and Fox's PAN administration, none of which have been interested in working in the interest of the vast majority of Mexicans.

Anyone who says Mr. Lopez Obrador does not mention the middle class, is obviously not listening to him. He is not trying to divide the country between poor and rich as Mr. Fco. Xavier and Ms. Lopez are mentioning above. The truth is, all we have seen for years is the poor becoming even poorer and the rich (with the political pull of course) becoming billionares in six year periods; a perfect example of speedy prosperity could be the first lady, Martha Sahag˙n's new rich kids, while the middle class are still trying to get a tight grip to maintain our social/economic position.

The poor have been forgotten and it is about time to think about them and start doing something for them. In the long run, it is for everyone's benefit. Nobody holds a magic wand and we would have to be dreamers to see the results immediately. Mexico is much too fertile and rich for any mexican to risk his life in the desert trying to cross the border, desintigrating his family, leaving behind his roots. Once we start solving the social issues and stop the corruption we have lived with for the past 70 years, our country will be safer for everyone and there in no doubt Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is the only hope at this point. The poor have a right to prosperity as much as the middle class and the rich do.

Anyone who says Mr. Lopez Obrador does not mention the middle class, is obviously not listening to him. He is not trying to divide the country between poor and rich as Mr. Fco. Xavier and Ms. Lopez are mentioning above. The truth is, all we have seen for years is the poor becoming even poorer and the rich (with the political pull of course) becoming billionares in six year periods; a perfect example of speedy prosperity could be the first lady, Martha Sahag˙n's new rich kids, while the middle class are still trying to get a tight grip to maintain our social/economic position.

The poor have been forgotten and it is about time to think about them and start doing something for them. In the long run, it is for everyone's benefit. Nobody holds a magic wand and we would have to be dreamers to see the results immediately. Mexico is much too fertile and rich for any mexican to risk his life in the desert trying to cross the border, desintigrating his family, leaving behind his roots. Once we start solving the social issues and stop the corruption we have lived with for the past 70 years, our country will be safer for everyone and there in no doubt Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is the only hope at this point. The poor have a right to prosperity as much as the middle class and the rich do.

4 years ago about this time I was discussing with a middle class Mexican cousin of mine who would be next to win the presidency in Mexico. I told him the person who governs Mexico City. Reasons, are that it contains 20% of the voting population, the vast media exposure, while Jorge Castaneda thought otherwise. Briefly, on Castaneda I heard him at UCLA while he was contemplating running for president, people and students could tell his candidacy was futile at best, he had no charisma, too wonkish, and arrogant basically, a person enamored in hearing himself speak. Also, his tenure as Canciller was a disaster. Here is why Lopez Obrador will win. Investors on Wall Street are betting on a AMLO win with type of trading that is going down. AMLO who I saw deliver a speech in Penjamo Guanajuato(the state Pres. Fox governed, and bastion of the PAN and PRI)filled the crowd with mostly impoverished farmers, senior citizens,and young people. He is probably the most charismatic politician since Bill Clinton, he is empathetic, feisty, and nows what are the hot button issues. He rails against priviliges in government, so cut down salaries, especially presidential pensions, give elderly a food grant, these are very popular measures. In politics there is one constituionacy that is a safe lock to vote: the elderly have the highest voter turnout rates all over the world. At one party I attended in Penjamo, I heard many old school PRIistas say they were voting for AMLO, just on the pensions, moreover, do not overlook as PASILLA stated his experience as a politician he is like Bill Clinton :the lethal combination of a skilled politician within the system and a commanding charismatic presence in the media. If you look at Calderon's campaign its not about his policies its about AMLO, this reminds me of the Republicans obsession of Bill Clinton. Calderon whether you like it not has little charisma, and is one of those neoliberal technocrats that studied at Harvard, just like Gortari, Zedillo, and others who look at economics through the prism of statistics, trade, and theory while not looking at it in a human dimension. 10% of Mexicans own 45%of the country, I was there for six months with my aunt not once did she turn the refrigerator on, you live day by day, and there is this desperation in daily Mexican life that technocrats cannot empathize or fully understand, and thats why AMLO is so relevant in rural areas, and impoverished areas. In regards to crime: didn't AMLO bring in Guiliani to aid in providing ideas in combatting it. Also what about the previous PRI regimes with their police chiefs like Durazo, who enrich themselves to the point that they had their own nightclubs in their homes. One thing I am saddened in the manner in which the PAN has acted because actually there are some decent good panistas like Francisco Barrio the first opposition candidate to win a governorship, or the tackling of corruption and cleaning the streets, and building effecient highways in Queretaro and Puebla. However, bringing in American political advisors such as Dick Morris, who cares nothing about impoverished Mexicans, but only about money has brought in negative attacks ads, lies, deceit, and created a polarized environment. With that said it will not be enough to derail AMLO.

Vives en México?. Muchos profesionistas independientes, que sí pagamos impuestos, que ya sobrepasamos los cuarenta años de edad y que nos ha costado un gran esfuerzo conseguir la posición (bastante limitada economicamente), pero que finalmente vemos que años de trabajo parece que ahora sí rinden frutos, estamos preocupados por el triunfo de López Obrador. Quiero un País de libertades y de responsabilidades. Tengo 44 años y solamene he conocido crisis económicas en mi vida laboral. Quiero tener oportunidad de retirarme diganamente. No creo en López Obrador. Creo que él significa una nueva crisis económica.

Globalization has ravaged Latin America for the last 20 years. Why then should we be surprised if it has turned to Mr Chavez and various other parties of the Left. If I were a Mexican citizen my vote would surely go to Mr Obrador, there is no other choice.

On point, I think that victory for Lopez Obrador will help to motivate centrism in the Latin American hemisphere by bringing balance in the move from far right to the left. His reality based populism and political experience is likely to influence the polarities of Castro, Chavez and Lula towards that centrism.

US interaction will be cautious, and mimic detente until gas prices reach $4 per gallon as the Far East becomes a better trading partner for Mexico. Only then will the US political establishment recognize that its anti-immmigration xenophobia has become a burden on US citizens.

Lopez Obrador will be in the cat-bird seat when he says, "Mr. President, Tear down that wall."

I guess Mr. Pasilla's point was immediatly overtrown by Patricia Lopez comments. She lived the full six years of Obrador's curse. Wake up Mr. Pasilla!

I guess Mr. Pasilla's point was immediatly overtrown by Patricia Lopez comments. She lived the full six years of Obrador's curse. Wake up Mr. Pasilla!

Unfortunately, no matter which of the two front-runners is selected, I am afraid that little real action will take place until further consolidation takes hold on the right and left in Mexico's Congress. The current three-way split is prone to obstructionism, regardless of the charismatic nature of the President, for many of the same contentious and politically charged reasons found in the United States. May I venture to suggest that the true long-term story to watch in connection with this election is whether, if Mr. Madrazo does not win, the PRI continues to remain a potent political force—particularly in the southeast—over the next 5-10 years. I would suggest that, over the long run, as typically happens in non-parliamentary democracies, Mexico's politicians will continue to separate themselves into two strong rival right and left camps, with no centrist party trying the bridge the growing gap as the current incarnation of the PRI is attempting to do.

Finally, one additional point. While Mr. Lopez Obrador's skills as a campaigner are excellent, and even his critics must respect his ability to enthuse otherwise highly cynical Mexican voters, his dedication to transparency and openness in governance seems somewhat suspect. May I also suggest that, if he wins, it will be worth watching whether Mexico's version of the Freedom of Information Act, only recently enacted in 2002, continues to foster more transparent federal government institutions or whether its continued vitality is gradually eroded. Access to information, as recent events in the US demonstrate, is clearly one of the most potent checks on government abuse.

I have lived in MÈxico City all my life, and think the last 10 years have been awful. A couple of friends were killed by mobsters and one of my nephews was also murdered by two guys when he was returning home in his brand new car, of course, our authorities did nothing. I could go on in a seven-pages letter describing the terrible situation we are encountering. I do not want another sixs years of the same. I definitely believe AndrÈs LÛpez is dangerous for MÈxico he did nothing while he was Major, devoting all his time to campaign instead of taking care of the problems and needs of the city and he is trying that "poor people" fights against "rich people", which definitely is dangerous for my country.

The abject Mr. Fox courtship of Mr. Bush, in order to get a migratory accord, has so far ended in nothing. Why is people like Mr. Krauze so innamored with Jorge Castaneda, a true vedette with a beard? Shame on you, Mr. Krauze, for appropriating the slogan of the right! I believe that part of the problem is that we refuse to believe that somebody like Mr. Lopez might have a genuine wish to improve the living conditions for millions of Mexicans. Granted: he is a politician, and we have to keep some healthy scepticism about his motives; but, is it "dangerous" to give somebody the benefit of the doubt? Mr. Lopez governed Mexico City for 5 years, harboring about one quarter of the population of Mexico, and the city is still standing. And some of his purported "shortcomings" in my view may well be assets: contrary to Mr. Fox, Mr. Lopez is a career politician, and some of his craft was learned while he was member of the PRI. Mr. Fox's culture of negotiation with the Mexican Congress was non-existent; perhaps a "politician," (not an "administrator") may do better. Finally, why is the renegociation of NAFTA almost impossible, as Mr. Krauze think? If the lifting of farm product tarifs is lifted as originally agreed, US should prepare itself for a flood of poor Mexican farmers looking for jobs. I will only finish by recomending Mr. Krauze to read Article 89 of the Mexican Constitution, which mandates that the Mexican President conduct foreign policy on the basis of "no-intervention."

I think that this person(Lopez Obrador) can be a serious problem because him pass over laws in Mexico from the time that him was in Tabasco state blokade many of the oil wells with some extrem crowds passing over law in some land in Mexico city and take charge of the city`s mayor with out the time mentionated for the law and many other tricks for take power ,talking very bad about private investors him try to divide the country between poors and rich (never talk about middle class ),and then change of mind continuosly, so one day say one thing next day say other completely different him said that him don`t know about the corruption in the city administration and many persons very closer to him in the government of the city was terrible corrupted people and they said "I don`t Know nothing about it" what`s can be this? I am affraid about this kind of leadership more if promote populism in this kind of issues many ignorant people is manipulated for him.(the last thing for stay in the news and remember to the people that him is there is a complain about a haker that suposed manipulate him webs page ....I don`t trust in this kind of party or person).

Whether Obrador becomes Mexico's next president or not, this race shows the country is working to conduct freer and more fair elections.

At washingtonpost.com's blog Campaign Conexion, in a posting titled, "Blessed Silencio" http://blog.washingtonpost.com/mexicovotes/campaign_conexion , Ceci Connolly today discusses the moratorium on campaigning in the three days ahead of the vote. Candidates' Web sites go dark, but for simple messages noting compliance with the rule.

Connolly's writing prompted a washingtonpost.com reader, Mark Borgschulte, to ask the following questions in the comments on that blog:

"How is it that Mexico has better electoral institutions than the U.S.? Even the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election along partisan lines. What institution in the U.S. could be trusted to arbitrate disputes fairly and generate useful rules like the three-day reflection period?" Borgschulte asks.

But this is an international forum. In what ways are Mexico's rules on campaigning succeeding, and how are they failing? How does the country's democratic evolution compare to that of other countries, including the U.S.?

there can be no clear leadership. What I am saying is this. A leader is like the conductor in the orchestra. IF he or she is not paying attention to the band or orchestra, the music will sound terrible.

An economy is only good if there is integrity among the workers. Mexico is a very affluent place when it comes to resources and availability of beautiful places. IF the people can be mobilized for their own good, then working together becomes profitable. When everyone is making money, when everyone can own a home or get medical care, then the whole country will be singing the same song.

What a wonderful country it will be. When people are willing to risk their lives to make a few dollars in America, what a resource these people would be to a vital Mexico. I had friends that were Vietnamese that left the country at the end of the Vietnam war. They wished to return home as soon as things stabilized. This is what will happen if Mexico, becomes a true democracy and represents the people. A resurgance of pride, and music and celebration. There are many gifts available to Mexico if they become a beautiful country that celebrates it's people and a very uncertain future if they allow plutocracies to run their government.

Many Americans would like to come to Mexico and travel, but it has a reputation of being unsafe. This is not good for the people or the economy.

Mexico deserves to venture another path, and Lopez Obrador is the leader who can forge that new path. As an impoverished country, Mexico is an anomaly considering that it is situated next to the richest, most powerful country in the world. The past leaders and politicians have done nothing but enrich themselves leaving 95% of the people poor and mendicant; these are the ones who are migrating to the US, mostly illegally. It's about time for Mexico to have new leadership, one that has the interests of the people, not just the oligarchy.